[blackjack21]

This video popped up into my recommended YouTube watch list.

I think we'll see the end of democratic government in my lifetime. Multiculturalism will render it indefensible (not morally, but practically), and politics will become inherently tribal--again, to the great disappointment of Marxists who have been hoping for some bizarre amalgamation of the working class to work in solidarity to overthrow the "bourgeoisie".

What do you think of this video?

[Sivad]

What do you think of this video?

The issues he raises all stem from a lack of democracy, most people don't want mass immigration or the wars and neoliberal economics that drive mass immigration. If we want to take control of our societies away from the oligarchs and their technocrats we need to expand democracy, not get rid of it.

We need to do away with winner take all elections and single member districts and institute multi-member districts with interactive representation. And we desperately need instant runoff voting(IRV).

IR
(1) "Interactive Representation" -- In this system, elected officials have the same number of votes as the number of people that voted for them. It uses an IRV-like procedure to limit the number of candidates. So, each elected official has a different number of votes. This is a very pure form of PR, but without voting for parties.

[Steve_American]

The issues he raises all stem from a lack of democracy, most people don't want mass immigration or the wars and neoliberal economics that drive mass immigration. If we want to take control of our societies away from the oligarchs and their technocrats we need to expand democracy, not get rid of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ljaXy1t0I44

We need to do away with winner take all elections and single member districts and institute multi-member districts with interactive representation. And we desperately need instant runoff voting(IRV).

IR
(1) "Interactive Representation" -- In this system, elected officials have the same number of votes as the number of people that voted for them. It uses an IRV-like procedure to limit the number of candidates. So, each elected official has a different number of votes. This is a very pure form of PR, but without voting for parties.

I have also suggested something very similar.
Your idea would motivate every citizen to get out and vote.
There would no longer be legislative races where it didn't matter if you voted because you knew who was going to win and the winner takes all the votes of all the citizens of that district. Even those who aren't registered and those who voted for the other guy.
Not sure how it would work for President, but maybe there should be a "Prime Minister" instead. With every member of the House and Senate getting to use all her votes in one big election process.

[Sivad]

Not sure how it would work for President

I like the executive council, a 3 - 5 member council that operates on the same IR system as the legislature. That way the majority of voters have some representation at the executive level and the opposition has oversight of the executive which would help prevent abuse of executive power.

[SolarCross]

I don't think "democracy" as such will disappear but I do think the time is overdue for mass participation democracy to disappear. The general citizen-soldier is obsolete for the military because they have cruise missiles and the like now consequently the military has no need to sustain the enfranchisement of the hoi-polloi in the political establishment or yield to their demands for benefits. No service no benefits!

That said on a local level for ordinary plebeian politics democracy may continue in some places. I suppose the stable pattern going forward would be a national, essentially autocratic, government which exists solely to fund the military, likely just through a simple land tax, and overview a few other security related issues like disease control and disaster management. Underneath which would be a constellation of local micro-protectorates which operate more or less totally independently of the national government which may or may not have democratic mechanisms. An overarching centralised military government on top of a lower strata of decentralised civilian "government".

[Rugoz]

(1) "Interactive Representation" -- In this system, elected officials have the same number of votes as the number of people that voted for them. It uses an IRV-like procedure to limit the number of candidates. So, each elected official has a different number of votes. This is a very pure form of PR, but without voting for parties.

Then who casts the votes of the losing candidates in parliament? You would still need multi-member districts with a cut-off, or transfer the losing votes to the party. I think it's also preferable to keep the "one man one vote rule" in representative bodies.

There are simpler systems which combine proportional and "personalized representation". In Switzerland for example you have multi-member districts, where each vote for a candidate is a vote for the party and a vote for the candidate. The votes for the party determine the party's number of seats and the votes for the candidates determine the candidates' positions on the party list.

[Sivad]

Then who casts the votes of the losing candidates in parliament?

All candidates that meet the threshold requirement go on to congress and represent whatever number of votes they receive. For voters whose candidates don't meet the minimum requirement there's an instant runoff that transfers their vote to their next ranked choice.

I think it's also preferable to keep the "one man one vote rule" in representative bodies.

Why?

Modifying IR so that it's one district one vote and weighting each district member's voting power according to the percentage of the vote they received might be something to think about. Otherwise districts with low turnout wouldn't have fair representation in congress.

There are simpler systems which combine proportional and "personalized representation". In Switzerland for example you have multi-member districts, where each vote for a candidate is a vote for the party and a vote for the candidate. The votes for the party determine the party's number of seats and the votes for the candidates determine the candidates' positions on the party list.

IR is superior to proportional representation because it drastically reduces the relevance of parties. The idea is to get rid of parties, not to further entrench the party system.

[Red_Army]

Politics has always been "tribal". There are forces in the world that struggle for dominance and control of resources. This myth that there is some over-arching Americanness that once united disparate classes, races, and religions is soft-brained nostalgia.

[Sivad]

Politics has always been "tribal". There are forces in the world that struggle for dominance and control of resources. This myth that there is some over-arching Americanness that once united disparate classes, races, and religions is soft-brained nostalgia.

Federalist No. 10
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
From the New York Packet. Friday, November 23, 1787.
MADISON

[Rich]

What do you think of this video?

Not a lot. I don't dispute that White genocide is on the cards, but complaining about democracy will get you nowhere. Sure if you had the support of the army, then you could overthrow the democratic regime with 25% support. but you don't. Getting rid of democracy or restricting suffrage would require huge popular backing. If you were able to win that support, then you wouldn't need to get rid of democracy in the first place. We're a million miles from a Hitler, a Mussolini or a Franco being able to take power/

I'm sorry but I have no time for these complaints about democracy whether from the right, centre or left. Democracy is not there to fulfil, your wish-list, or mine or anybody else's. I don't ask you to respect the winners of democratic elections, but I do suggest that you respect the social and institutional realities of power.

[Decky]

The issues he raises all stem from a lack of democracy, most people don't want mass immigration or the wars and neoliberal economics that drive mass immigration. If we want to take control of our societies away from the oligarchs and their technocrats we need to expand democracy, not get rid of it.

This.

Mass immigration has happened as a result of the capitalists and their lust for cheap easily exploitable labour. If we had actual democracy instead of the permanent business lead centre right government that we have to tolerate in the west there would be no immigration.

A socialist government of and for the workers would end it as one of their first priorities. Look at the Soviet Union and East Germany, the left is strong on border control, the right is very very lax on it.

[blackjack21]

The issues he raises all stem from a lack of democracy, most people don't want mass immigration or the wars and neoliberal economics that drive mass immigration. If we want to take control of our societies away from the oligarchs and their technocrats we need to expand democracy, not get rid of it.

I'm inclined to agree. However, classical liberalism isn't even taught in schools. Kids these days think the SJW religion is something meaningful. They are campaigning for censorship. The Baby Boomers themselves have given up on the free speech movement. I spent my early childhood in Berkeley, CA, where that was sort of a big deal. It's ironic that the same ideology that was a proponent of free speech when they were a political minority are opposing free speech now that they are the stewards of the university institutions.

There would no longer be legislative races where it didn't matter if you voted because you knew who was going to win and the winner takes all the votes of all the citizens of that district.

It really doesn't matter if I vote for my preferred candidate, which makes my vote only useful to act as a spoiler now. In California, we have open primaries and we only put the top two vote getters on the ballot so that they can keep the Republicans off the ballot in many cases. So it makes more sense for me to do things like vote for Kevin de Leon over Dianne Feinstein, just to take down long standing establishment politicians.

Not sure how it would work for President, but maybe there should be a "Prime Minister" instead. With every member of the House and Senate getting to use all her votes in one big election process.

I like the independence of the US presidency. The UK PM is intentionally a bit weaker so as not to be a threat to the monarch.

That way the majority of voters have some representation at the executive level and the opposition has oversight of the executive which would help prevent abuse of executive power.

I think the US could potentially be ungovernable with that configuration. As weird as it is to see the Democrats lose two presidential elections of the last 5 presidential election while winning urban majorities, the majority of the people across the territory have the government they want. It is increasingly leading to unlikely politicians though. Clinton, Obama and Trump were sort of unthinkable politicians, but they won.

[Rugoz]

All candidates that meet the threshold requirement go on to congress and represent whatever number of votes they receive. For voters whose candidates don't meet the minimum requirement there's an instant runoff that transfers their vote to their next ranked choice.

The threshold would have to be the number of seats per district to keep the number of representatives fixed. I guess the votes of losing candidates could be transferred to next ranked choices, though I'm not sure it would lead to a unique solution. Attempts to introduce STV often fail because the system is considered too complex. Yours is even more complex.

Why?

Because it's transparent and simple, which matters for the acceptance of voting systems. I agree with FPTP being undesirable though.

IR is superior to proportional representation because it drastically reduces the relevance of parties. The idea is to get rid of parties, not to further entrench the party system.

I don't see the problem with parties as long as there's a sufficient variety of them, which is usually the case under simple PR. In fact I loathe the personalization of politics so anything that leads to a larger focus on the issues is a good thing.

[Rich]

Mass immigration has happened as a result of the capitalists and their lust for cheap easily exploitable labour. If we had actual democracy instead of the permanent business lead centre right government that we have to tolerate in the west there would be no immigration.

Many major owners of capital have opposed immigration, while all the far left have continually opposed any restrictions on immigration. The left formed an anti Nazi league not an anti Capitalist league. The left have continually focused their opposition any party that seriously challenged immigration, the National Front, the BNP and more recently UKIP. The left even got people to vote for Tories in order to stop UKIP getting MPs. Business is only one of the forces that have pushed for mass immigration of Muslims and crime ridden alien cultures. The others are:

2 The Left fanatical devotion to the immigration course and Islamophillia.
3 Government politicians and officials seeking short term spending increases and tax cuts by importing young taxable working age immigrants with initially lower use of government services.
4 Jewish intellectuals and opinion formers who have sought to destroy European Ethnic states while pushing the right of the Jews to a volk state.

Jewish supremacists and Cultural Marxists have allied to destroy European ethnic states while being on being completely opposite sides when it comes to Israel. At last some Jewish supremacists are coming to see the error of their ways. Both the Jewish supremacists and the left have actually held Islam in contempt. They have both seen the Muslims as useful idiots that can be manipulated to further their anti White (Gentile) hate agendas. The Iranian revolution showed who the useful idiots are.

[Decky]

Many major owners of capital have opposed immigration, while all the far left have continually opposed any restrictions on immigration. The left formed an anti Nazi league not an anti Capitalist league. The left have continually focused their opposition any party that seriously challenged immigration, the National Front, the BNP and more recently UKIP. The left even got people to vote for Tories in order to stop UKIP getting MPs. Business is only one of the forces that have pushed for mass immigration of Muslims and crime ridden alien cultures. The others are:

2 The Left fanatical devotion to the immigration course and Islamophillia.
3 Government politicians and officials seeking short term spending increases and tax cuts by importing young taxable working age immigrants with initially lower use of government services.
4 Jewish intellectuals and opinion formers who have sought to destroy European Ethnic states while pushing the right of the Jews to a volk state.

Jewish supremacists and Cultural Marxists have allied to destroy European ethnic states while being on being completely opposite sides when it comes to Israel. At last some Jewish supremacists are coming to see the error of their ways. Both the Jewish supremacists and the left have actually held Islam in contempt. They have both seen the Muslims as useful idiots that can be manipulated to further their anti White (Gentile) hate agendas. The Iranian revolution showed who the useful idiots are.

Meanwhile here in the real world the left are tough on border control, have you not ever heard of the Berlin wall? The idea of the left encouraging anyone to vote Tory is of course fucking ludicrous. Also it is cute that you think UKIP is anti immigration. They are anti EU immigration sure, but they want EU migrants replaced with commonwealth ones. UKIP would just be replacing Polish immigration with Pakistani Immigration. They are libertarians and have never actually opposed immigration as a whole. The left are the only ones who do that.

As for your assertion about the left being pro Jewish, just ask Corbyn.

[Steve_American]

Replying to Rich and Decky.

I think it is more complicated than either of you think.
Yes, the so called liberal parties in America and Europe are now controlled by Neo-liberal economics. So, they may be bringing in immigrants because it suppresses wages and this keeps inflation low (at least this is their thinking, IStM).
Right-wing parties mostly oppose immigration because the immigrants are brown. White immigrants are opposed much less. IStM.
Using historical examples is not that useful. Times change. At one time Blacks in the South voted for Republicans because their white suppressors were voting Democrat. Now, it is the Republicans who suppress the Blacks, so now Blacks vote Democrat.

[Drlee]

You know Blackjack, if you would stop the trolling you would make some excellent points. You need not do it though I know it gives you some perverse joy.

I think we'll see the end of democratic government in my lifetime.

We see it clearly now. Just look at the Trump victory. He won the majority of tribes not the majority of votes.

Multiculturalism will render it indefensible

I know multiculturalism is one of your bugaboos but it is not the problem except that blocks consolations of tribes to some extent.

and politics will become inherently tribal--again

They are on the right, already.

, to the great disappointment of Marxists who have been hoping for some bizarre amalgamation of the working class to work in solidarity to overthrow the "bourgeoisie".

Correct.

I'm inclined to agree. However, classical liberalism isn't even taught in schools. Kids these days think the SJW religion is something meaningful. They are campaigning for censorship. The Baby Boomers themselves have given up on the free speech movement. I spent my early childhood in Berkeley, CA, where that was sort of a big deal. It's ironic that the same ideology that was a proponent of free speech when they were a political minority are opposing free speech now that they are the stewards of the university institutions.

All too true.

It really doesn't matter if I vote for my preferred candidate, which makes my vote only useful to act as a spoiler now. In California, we have open primaries and we only put the top two vote getters on the ballot so that they can keep the Republicans off the ballot in many cases. So it makes more sense for me to do things like vote for Kevin de Leon over Dianne Feinstein, just to take down long standing establishment politicians.

Your vote doesn't matter because as a Californian you are vastly underrepresented in the government. There is only one house of the legislature that matters at all in the US and that is the Senate. The House of Representatives is just Sturm und Drang. Trump and Obama have proved that we really govern by proclamation.

[ccdan]

I think we'll see the end of democratic government

I hope so and I hope an enlightened dictator will take charge and bring (back) genuine liberty to people in the civilized world(the west needs a modern version of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) as we're heading now towards more and more democratic totalitarianism(fewer and fewer individual rights, more and more deeds get criminalized, more and more restrictions and controls, lots of surveillance, etc. )

What do you think of this video?

Poor quality far right propaganda.

Multiculturalism is NOT a problem in general(with relatively few exceptions)

Unchecked immigration from poorer countries IS a problem.

Globalization - save for unchecked immigration of workers from poorer countries to richer ones - is generally a very good thing!

Nationalism is outdated and wrong, just as democracy is.

Illegal immigration from poorer countries can be tackled without resorting to xenophobia, nationalism and various discriminatory or extremist ideas associated with the far right.

[Deutschmania]

An increasing number of young people no longer support liberal democracy anyway , according to this article . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/18/have-millennials-given-up-on-democracy Instead , the young generation is coming to be in favor of socialism in general , and even to a lesser extent such more hardcore ideologies as Communism and fascism . https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/4/majority-millennials-want-live-socialist-fascist-o/ . Perhaps certain posters on Pofo , such as myself , but also my worthy neofascist rival counterparts , such as Saeko , for example , have been making some impact upon public opinion .

[Negotiator]

Uh-hu. Well, then lets get back to basics. What would Jesus do ?

"whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"

This is the core principle of all rulership. The only way to justify if someone rules over others is if this rulership is a service to those that are ruled over. I fail to see how democracy is not the best system to fulfill this criterion.

An increasing number of young people no longer support liberal democracy anyway [...] Instead , the young generation is coming to be in favor of socialism [...]

And what does that even mean ?

Our so-called "liberal democracy" isnt very democratic at all. Basically we pick random people from the same elite assuming that it gets better, and then we are constantly surprised if it doesnt. Real democracy needs the politicians to have to justify their actions to the people. In the system we have now they have to justify their actions to the rich.

Specifically in the USA, the success of a candidate can be measured almost perfectly by measuring the funding of their campaign. This has been the case since the late 19. century. And said funding usually comes from the rich. So effectively the rich vote the candidates, not the people.

On top of that, there are effectively only two parties in the USA. The rest are pure decoration, to throw away your vote. Thats not really much of a choice at all.

About socialism, there is no actual socialism without democracy; its an extension of democracy, not an alternative system.